DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 75-80, in the reply filed on 02 June 2026, is acknowledged.
Applicant's remark regarding the standard for restriction in the reply filed on 02 June 2026, is acknowledged. In this regard, Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a pair of electrodes comprising or consisting of a single-layer or a few-layer graphene and having an etch channel nanogap separating the electrodes, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Strachan et al. (US 2016/0155971), as outlined below regarding the rejection of claims 75-80 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Strachan teaches all the limitations of claim 75 (i.e. and therefore teaches all of the limitations common to groups I and II). As such, the technical feature of a pair of electrodes comprising or consisting of a single-layer or a few-layer graphene and having an etch channel nanogap separating the electrodes is considered to be neither novel nor inventive a posteriori over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 61-74 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02 June 2026.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 75-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 75 recites an etched nanogap in line 3 which would seem to indicate a void, and also recites comprising an active material in line 4 (i.e. the nanogap is a material). The nanogap being a material instead of a void is also indicated by claim 76 at line 6 reciting the nanogap comprising a transition metal dichalcogenide. Therefore, the nanogap is considered to be a spacing between the source electrode and drain electrode that contains a material (i.e. the nanogap is not necessarily a void spacing). It is not clear how an etched nanogap (i.e. a void) is also a material.
Claim 75 recites “a source electrode and a drain electrode” in lines 1-2, “the source and drain electrodes” in line 2, and “the electrodes” in line 3. It is recommended to use consistent terminology when referencing the same parts so that the limitations are clear. In the interest of advancing prosecution, these different terms are considered to all refer to the initially introduced source electrode and drain electrode.
Claim 76 recites at least two longitudinally oriented graphene segments (having a gap or distance between them) whereas base claim 75 recites source and drain electrodes comprising or consisting of graphene with a nanogap therebetween. It is not clear if these are structures are the same structures or different graphene structures.
Claim 76 recites the limitation “the nanomaterial-induced etching” in line 5, and claim 77 recites the limitation "the nanomaterial-induced catalytic etching" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because these limitations are not previously introduced in the claims.
Claim 76 recites the limitation “the gap or distance between proximal ends” in line 4. The antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims is unclear because an etched nanogap is introduced in base claim 75 and the use of the indefinite article “a” makes it unclear if the limitation refers to the previously introduced etched nanogap or is a different gap.
Claim 76 (line 4) and claim 77 (line 3) each recite “a nanogap”. The antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims is unclear because an etched nanogap is introduced in base claim 75 and the use of the indefinite article “a” makes it unclear if the limitation refers to the previously introduced etched nanogap or is a different nanogap.
Claim 80 recites the device being a channel device photodetector or sensor in lines 1-2. However, base claim 75 recites a short channel transistor device. As outlined on page 10 of the instant specification, the device may be sensors, switches, quantum devices such as transistors, etc. Being disclosed as alternative embodiments (i.e. sensor or transistors), it is not clear that these are the same device. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the disputed limitations will be considered as different devices. It is noted that claim 80 will result in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as failing to include all the limitations of the base claim if this interpretation is maintained and not corrected in Applicant’s response to this Office Action.
Claim 80 recites a pair of graphene nanogap electrodes separated by a nanogap formed by etching. However, base claim 75 recites a source electrode and drain electrode each comprising or consisting graphene (i.e. a pair of graphene electrodes) and an etch nanogap between the electrodes (i.e. separated by a nanogap). Due to the difference in wording and use of the indefinite article “a”, it is not clear if the features recited in claim 80 are the same features as those recited in claim 75 or different features. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the disputed limitations will be considered to refer to the same features.
Claims 78 and 79 are rejected as they depend on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 75-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strachan et al. (US 2016/0155971).
Claim 75: Strachan teaches a multi-terminal device with an atomically-thin source electrode and an atomically-thin drain electrode separated by a nanogap (paragraph 0004) (i.e. this is considered to describe a short channel transistor device). The at least two electrodes are graphene electrodes, separated by a gap such as a nanogap, which may be achieved by etching (i.e. an etched nanogap), and the graphene may be a single atomic layer or higher (i.e. a single-layer or a few-layer graphene lies within this range) (paragraphs 0027-0028). The source electrode and drain electrode are separated by a nanogap of between 0.3 and 100 nm, which has sufficient specificity as to be substantially identical to the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03. At least one atomically-thin channel material crystallographically aligned with at least one electrode bridges the nanogap, wherein the channel material is atomically-thin in a 2D structure and may include MoS2, WSe2, metal dichalcogenides, etc. (i.e. active material because instant claim 76 recites substantially identical material) (paragraph 0004). The teaching of metal dichalcogenides as channel material is considered to teach the etched nanogap as comprising an active material because this material is recited for the nanogap in instant claim 76, and substantially identical materials have substantially identical properties and functions. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 76: Strachan teaches a multi-terminal device having an atomically-thin source electrode and an atomically-thin drain electrode separated by a nanogap, and atomically thin 2D structured channel material that bridges the nanogap (paragraph 0004) (i.e. the device is a nanofabricated transistor device since the features are sized on a nanoscale). The at least two graphene electrodes are separated by a gap such as a nanogap, which may be achieved by etching (paragraph 0028). This is considered to teach at least two longitudinally oriented graphene segments, which is also depicted by Strachan in Figs. 1c, 2a, 2b, 3c, 4a, and 7a, and are shown in these figures where each segment has at least one end proximal to an end of another graphene segment and the gap between each two proximate ends is a nanogap. The limitation of “wherein the nanogap is formed by the nanomaterial-induced etching” is acknowledged and is considered to be a product-by-process limitation, which is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP § 2113. In this regard, Strachan teaches that the crystallographic etch patterns can be obtained by catalytic etching to construct nanoscale electrically-isolated segments useful for devices (paragraph 0067) (i.e. the nanogap is formed by nanomaterial-induced etching). Strachan teaches that the channel material bridging the nanogap suitably may be transition metal dichalcogenides etc. (paragraph 0026).
Claim 77: The limitations of claim 77 are considered to be product-by-process limitations, which is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP § 2113. In this regard, Strachan teaches that the crystallographic etch patterns can be obtained by catalytic etching to construct nanoscale electrically-isolated segments useful for devices (paragraph 0067) and the at least two graphene electrodes are separated by a gap such as a nanogap, which may be achieved by etching (paragraph 0028). This is considered to teach a lateral channel in a graphene strip formed by nanomaterial-induced catalytic etching, which is also depicted by Strachan in Figs. 1c, 2a, 2b, 3c, 4a, and 7a, where the lateral channel is shown in these figures.
Claim 78: The limitations of claim 78 are considered to be product-by-process limitations, which is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP § 2113. In this regard, Strachan teaches the structural features of a graphene strip on a substrate material (paragraph 0010), a lateral channel in the graphene strip (as outlined above regarding instant claim 77), and an active material (i.e. channel material that bridges the nanogap as outlined above regarding instant claim 75). Regarding active material being in the channel, Strachan teaches that atomically-thin materials like transition metal dichalcogenides could be grown via van er Walls epitaxial growth directly over the nanogap (paragraph 0044) which would be expected to also result in transition metal dichalcogenides (i.e. active material as outlined above regarding instant claim 75) being in the channel.
Claim 79: Strachan teaches the channel material is atomically-thin in a basically 2D structure (paragraph 0004).
Claim 80: Strachan teaches that the device may be used as a sensor (paragraph 0038). The recited structural features are outlined above regarding instant claims 75 and 76.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al. (US 9,577,049) teaches a semiconductor device structure that includes a source electrode and drain electrode made of graphene and spaced apart by a gap of about 2 nm to 7 nm. The underlying semiconductor layer (i.e. forming the bottom of the gap) includes a transition metal dichalcogenide.
Reddy Arava et al. (US 2021/0288152) teaches an electronic device having a first electrode and a second electrode with a nano-gap formed therebetween.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights